British Railways Board v Herrington [1972]

Court: House of Lords

Facts: A six-year-old boy, Herrington, suffered severe burns after wandering onto a live railway line operated by British Railways Board. The railway company had neglected to maintain proper fencing around the dangerous area, despite knowing that children sometimes trespassed on the tracks. The boy's parents sued the railway company for negligence.

Issue: The central issue was whether the railway company owed a duty of care to trespassers, particularly children, and if so, whether the company was negligent in failing to prevent access to the hazardous area.

Held: The House of Lords held that the railway company did owe a duty of care to trespassers, including the child in this case. This marked a departure from the previous decision in Addie v Dumbreck, which had established that no duty of care was owed to trespassers.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Pearson, delivering the judgment, explained that the earlier ruling in Addie v Dumbreck was no longer adequate given the evolving social and physical conditions. He noted that the increase in urban populations and the greater temptation for children to trespass, combined with advancements in technology and new dangers, required a re-evaluation of the duty of care owed to trespassers. Lord Pearson emphasized, "The rigid and restrictive nature of the rule in Addie v Dumbreck has been overtaken by modern conditions. Occupiers now have a duty of common humanity to take reasonable steps to protect trespassers, especially children, from foreseeable harm."

💡 LevelUpLaw: British Railways Board v Herrington is a landmark case illustrating the evolution of the law in response to changing societal conditions. It established that occupiers have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect trespassers, particularly vulnerable individuals like children, from foreseeable dangers. The case highlights the legal system’s adaptability in addressing contemporary risks and ensuring reasonable safety standards.